The Infamous British White Paper

75 years ago the “death sentence for the Jews” was handed down while the U.S. remained silent.

“We know we are going to be bamboozled,” a despondent Stephen Wise, the foremost American Jewish leader of his time, confided to a friend before boarding a ship bound for England in early 1939. The British had invited Wise and other Zionist leaders from the United States and Palestine to take part in a “peace conference” with Arab leaders.

Wise expected the worst, and he was right. The conference in London’s majestic St. James Palace would set the stage for the imposition – 75 years ago this month – of the infamous British White Paper, choking off Jewish immigration to Palestine on the eve of World War II and the Holocaust.

In the third week of the conference, a clerical error by a British secretary resulted in World Zionist Organization President Chaim Weizmann receiving a letter from Colonial Secretary Malcolm MacDonald that was intended to be seen only by the Arab delegates. In the letter, MacDonald promised severe limits on Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine, and no Jewish national home without Arab consent.

His worst fears confirmed, Dr. Wise and the other American members of the delegation returned to the United States with one last hope in their hearts – that the Jews closest to the White House could persuade President Franklin D. Roosevelt to prevent the British from imposing the new policy. In fact, Wise had remarked to the president, not long before, that with war looming in Europe, “the English need you – our Government – in every sense.” And FDR had replied, “You bet.” The British could not afford to ignore pressure from the White House on Palestine.

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a confidant of the president as well as a supporter of Zionism, had already telephoned the president and urged U.S. intervention against the British plan. FDR waxed sympathetic on the phone and told Frankfurter to draft a note from him (Roosevelt) to British Prime Minister Chamberlain, urging him not to close Palestine’s doors. Frankfurter wrote it. FDR never sent it.

Ben-Gurion said it was “the greatest betrayal perpetrated by the government of a civilized people in our generation.”

Next it was the turn of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whom FDR affectionately called “Old Isaiah.” But the president didn’t display much affection when it came to Zionism. In a handwritten note, Brandeis pleaded with Roosevelt to “induce the British to postpone the threatened announcement.” Two weeks passed; there was no reply. An exasperated Brandeis asked if the president could at least spare “a few minutes” to see a Zionist representative. White House aide Stephen Early broached the request with the president, and then jotted down FDR’s curt response: “Can’t see him – Sec. State is all that is possible.”

On May 17, 1939, the White Paper was announced. Palestine Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion said it was “the greatest betrayal perpetrated by the government of a civilized people in our generation.” Dr. Weizmann called it “a death sentence for the Jewish people.” He was especially dismayed that “the White Paper produced no reaction on the part of the American authorities.”

Mainstream historians have always regarded England’s White Paper policy as severely unfavorable to the Jews. Prof. Henry L. Feingold has gone so far as to argue that a policy restricting immigration and land purchases only by Jews must have been “at least partly motivated by anti-Semitism.”

In recent years, however, several pro-Roosevelt authors have depicted the Allies’ Palestine policy in a new light. Robert Rosen, author of “Saving the Jews,” claims the White Paper “saved [the Jews of the Middle East] from the Holocaust,” because otherwise the Arab world supposedly would have revolted against the Allies and the Nazis would have captured the region and killed all the Jews living there. Richard Breitman and Alan Lichtman, authors of “FDR and the Jews,” claim that during the St. James conference, Roosevelt secretly pressured the British “on behalf of Jews.” Their source for that claim, however, turned out to be a paranoid Arab delegate to the conference.

But these revisionist accounts got it all wrong, and Prof. Feingold got it right. We now know from declassified British records that some senior British government officials did, in fact, harbor anti-Semitic sentiments. And we also know that President Roosevelt never seriously considered pressing the British on Palestine.

The history of FDR’s response to the persecution of European Jewry is littered with empty promises and missed opportunities.

FDR went through the motions. He instructed the State Department to inform London that the U.S. hoped “no drastic changes” were intended. In a private memo to Secretary of State Cordell Hull on the day the White Paper was issued, FDR called the new policy “something that we cannot give approval to.”

But he instructed the U.S. ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy, to limit his criticism of the White Paper to unofficial conversations. There was to be no official U.S. protest, no White House statements criticizing the White Paper, not a single substantive step that might influence London on the issue. The British took note of Roosevelt’s minimalist response and dug in their heels without fear of any real consequences.

The history of FDR’s response to the persecution of European Jewry is littered with empty promises and missed opportunities. Seventy-five years ago this month, one of the most important of those opportunities was squandered – and as a result, one of European Jewry’s last avenues of escape from the Nazis was almost completely shut off.

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and coauthor, with Prof. Sonja Schoepf Wentling, of the new book “Herbert Hoover and the Jews: The Origins of the ‘Jewish Vote’ and Bipartisan Support for Israel.”

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 32

(21)
Lisa,
September 23, 2014 7:15 PM

Not all Brits

Not all Britons were or are Jew haters. They took in and saved my direct family, who were helped and financed by non-Jews to escape Eastern Europe in the 1930s. I consider myself a proud English Jew, and can honestly and wholeheartedly say, the only anti-Semitism I have ever experienced in Britain has been from a muslim on a train, who noticed me wearing the Star of David.

(20)
Beverly Margolis-Kurtin,
May 29, 2014 2:01 AM

What goes around comes around

FDR wanted WWII. To assure that we would get involved, he cut off oil exports to Japan in order to try to get them to stop ravinging Asia. Instead, as he must have known, he brought about Pearl Harbor.The abominable “White Paper” signed the death sentence on us, however, there was a warning before that: Mein Kampf. Jews who read it and took it to heart, left Germany and Poland. They knew Hitler was not kidding. Those who read it and did not believe it paid with their lives.My paternal side of the family lost 47 members to the Holocaust; the others had escaped to America and South America while getting out was good.Our family had sent money to those who could not afford to leave, they spent it. Two more times the family sent money with the same result. Then it was too late.All four of my grandparents escaped to the United States shortly after the turn of the century. They were escaping the progroms of Russia and Poland. It is a shame that not all of the hundreds (possibly thousands?) of their descendants do not know that they have their great and great great grandparents for leaving Europe when there was more than enough time. It is a pity.The British had no qualms about resisting the immigration of Jews to Palestine, they have never had the slightest love for the Jews. I speak of the government, not the people. The “Royals” are rooted in German blood; that is the genesis of their Jew hate.Even when we were about to get a country of our own for the first time in two thousand years, the British tried to make certain that the five Arab nations that attacked us would have a better than even chance of destroying us. They were wrong.Today’s monsters who would destroy us and all of the West are the people with whom the Brits tried to make friends. Their Muslim “friends” are doing all they can do to destroy the Brits.What goes around comes around.

(19)
annie,
May 26, 2014 9:44 AM

the right to flight

although many Jews did not go to Palestine (nee Israel) in the 20's and 30's - that is not the issueFDR, Britain and many others turned their back on Jews at that timeit isn't about "going" it is about being "allowed" to go - when and if one wants or needs to

If you are Greek and want to return to Greece - and are told "you can't go" - because the British, Americans etc. want to pay off someone with human life for their goodsThat Is Wrong - it is the responsibility of all people of the world to stand together against evilnot collect revenue by the sale of human flesh

(18)
Anonymous,
May 18, 2014 7:07 PM

America is to blame for the Worlds problems.

Yep, America (U.S.) remains silent per usual....both past and present. The United States is guilty of every known sin in the world, and it knows it...and enjoys it. It's the most selfish, land hungry, and narcissistic country in the world. It continually refuses to help any nation or nations fight evil, and is therefore evil itself. The best thing that could happen in this world is that the United States just goes away, and leave itself to it's own demise. Yep, Americans just don't care about anything but themselves......

(17)
Hanan,
May 15, 2014 11:58 PM

Hypocrisy?

With all due respect, bad decisions that have terrible moral consequences are rampant in every culture and nation. Did we ever hear the orthodox (and I am one) screaming to save any number of people from persecution and death (Cambodians, Darfur etc etc.)? How many of the Israeli orthodox as a combined voice were there to save the Ethiopians, only instead for them to be treated like second rate Jews and citizens.

You can't shout out how nobody came to your rescue when we ourselves have not been exactly the shinning light either. Since this is an orthodox website, I am particularly addressing orthodoxy here.

(16)
Dr. M. Stroe,
May 15, 2014 2:09 PM

The 'British White Paper' and FDR

The Brits were out and out Jew haters. FDR was the biggest hypocrite that ever paraded in the USA.

(15)
Steve,
May 15, 2014 3:44 AM

Playing the Blame Game

If not for the Russians we probably wouldn't be here today.If we are going to blame why not go theCatholic Church and and two thousand years of anti Semitism leading to the final solution.We are such a tiny minority to some degree we will always be subject to being a victim.0It was the Christian Church now it is the Muslims.I feel bessed to be born Jewish but let's not kid ourselves we are not liked as a people only tolerated at times.We have a lot to be proud of we will continue.How many times did G-d want to destroy us along with the rest of the world,yet we are still here.Defiant as ever.Go figure

Christian church now it is the .Muslims

(14)
jgarbuz,
May 15, 2014 3:42 AM

Few Jews went to Palestine in the '20s and '30s.

My mother wanted to go with her girlfriends to Palestine from her shtetl in Poland back in the mid 1930s but my grandmother talked her out of it. The whole family was later murdered and my mother just barely survived. The truth is that most Jews did not, could not, would not go to Palestine between 1922 and 1939 when the gates were still wide open under the Mandate. The reasons for not going were varied, but the bottom line is that had the Jews gone in great numbers there would not have been a Holocaust and possibly a Jewish state by 1938. By 1939 the British saw that war was coming and that Arab oil was necessary, and it was decided to issue the dastardly White Paper that was a clear betrayal of the League of Nations Mandate and the Jewish people. But first the JEwish people did not come in sufficient numbers where the gates were wide open for 18 years. That too should be remembered.

HaroldT,
May 15, 2014 2:53 PM

British white paper

You comments are spot on.

(13)
Anonymous,
May 14, 2014 10:11 PM

Great book on the topic

I haven't read FRD & the jews recommended above, but i just finished reading a brilliant book: "While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy Paperback – February 1, 1998by Arthur D. Morse (Author)"Highly recommended.

(12)
Mickey Cooper,
May 14, 2014 3:24 PM

FDR - PHONNEY

As a Jew growing up in the Bronx, NY FDR was the hero of the time. Entering the service, and depending on my own thoughts, reading and discussing with various academics I concluded a long ago that FDR was not a true friend of the Jewish people

(11)
Anonymous,
May 14, 2014 3:20 AM

All hypocrites

Lets be truthful in the 30's was when Arabs discovered oil and the Jewish population in Europe was becoming a threat. They could have saved countless lives and generations. But the need for oil was already immense. I am not sorry to say or believe that there was a conspiracy against the Jews. They were "kind" enough to leave a few alive and then make it look as if they rescued them. As I have heard said they "put the Jews in their place". They purposely reduced the population and let us not forget America turned away European Jews. You will never convince me that not all the nations were somehow not involved in the final solution.

(10)
Anonymous,
May 14, 2014 12:51 AM

I just finished reading FDR and The Jews. I would reccomend this book if anyone was interested in this time in history. The tone of this book is serious and thoughtfull. The authors are Richard Breitman and Allen Lichtman.

(9)
Haim,
May 13, 2014 10:54 PM

The US was almost as anti-semtic as Germany

Bless the memory of FDR, he saved America from Fascism. Ther was no support in the US in 1939 for going to war. The Germans portrayed it as a "Jews War," and the right called FDR Rosenvelt. The right wingers in Congress wouldn't even let in any significant numbers of refugees.The revisionists who trash FDR don't remember that one of the most popular people in America was Charles Lindbergh, and that Father Coughlin, the anti-semtic radio priest had 30 million listeners every week.FDR, zichron l'bracha

Dvirah,
May 14, 2014 4:27 PM

Not Enough

FDR may have done some of the "right" things but for self-serving reasons. He perceived and reacted to the general threat but did not care about specific threats to the Jews and other despised groups (we tend to forget that the Gypsys had it almost as bad as we did). What he did, any US president would have had to do, it was no personal merit. And re Father Conghlin and Lindeburgh, neither FDR nor any official agency restrained them in any way.

(8)
Don Krausz,
May 13, 2014 8:06 PM

Who were responsible for the Shoah?

The British White Paper limited Jewish immigration into Palestine to 15,000 a year. This policy was adhered to throughout WW2 until the establishment of Israel in May 1948.

After the Arab defeat in 1948 the Jews living in Arab states were persecuted, dispossessed and expelled. Many had lived there since Babylon. About 500,000 of these Jews sought refuge in Israel which accepted them, even though they had to be put up in tents in Maabarot.

If Israel was able to do this in 1948 then it is feasible that she could have saved an equal number of Jews during the Shoah which ended in May 1945.

Who perpetrated the Shoah?

(7)
Morton Friedman,
May 13, 2014 7:57 PM

The more one learns about FDR, the worse he gets. He left a legacy of an Arabist State Department, one that continues even today. If Truman had not considered the countering of Soviet recognition of Israel as more important than the machinations of the US State Department, there would have been no US recognition of Israel. But even he should not be afforded 'hero' status, for with that recognition came an embargo on all arms necessary for that newly born state to defend itself.

(6)
Anonymous,
May 13, 2014 7:50 PM

Some of Their Best Friends. . .

Tuesday, 05/13/14 common era/////Never forget that some leading U.S. business titans did business with Nazi Germany:Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, General Motors, Eastman-Kodak, and Sterling Pharmaceuticals. There were no Jewish "settlements" back then. . . .

Anonymous,
May 14, 2014 4:32 PM

Re Settlements

Yes there were: Tel-Aviv, Hadera...any Jewish presence was and is perceived as a "settlement" by our adveraries!

anon,
May 14, 2014 4:35 PM

and IBM!

don't forget them. They helped to "automate" the process.

(5)
Frank Adam,
May 13, 2014 7:35 PM

And the US quota acts?

That the British were wrong in the late 30's is undeniable but it comes badly from US mouths who had passed at least three immigration quota acts in the early 20's of which the last - the Johnson Act set those quotas by the percentages of immigrants' origins according to the 1896 census and so shut the doors to Jewish migration well before the British ever did - and there is the disgusting St Louis incident.I know the British are the target of US primary school patriotism but flogging the dead horse of the long dead British Empire looks immature when since the US as planetary hegemon since 1943 has often followed in British footsteps with naval power, balance of power in Europe and not least in for oil in the Arab vendetta on Israel qv the reluctance of Marshall as Secretary of State and the Eisenhower -Dulles clumsy treatment of the Sinai/ Suez Campaign in 1956 /57 or supporting .Bash Brits if you wish but the US tunnel vision for its own interests also explains why it is not always popular everywhere all the time.

(4)
bob kirk,
May 12, 2014 3:17 PM

The British continue to favor the Arabs & Moslems

The British and French from the 19th century wanted control of the Mideast, then part of the Turkish empire. As the idea of a Jewish state developed it found some support in Britain which saw a Jewish state as Biblically justified and useful to Britain. As the Arabs attacked and massacred the Jews, the British changed course putting their own interests ahead of Jewish rights. Also Britain ignored the terms of the League of Nations mandate which stated that Jews had the right to independence. Thus Britain ignored its legal obligation to the League of Nations and the Jews. Britain also ignored the League of Nations mandate in Iraq and abandoned the Kurds who were also to get independence alongside the Arabs and the Jews. There were vastly more Arabs, oil was now valued and Britain gained more from abandoning the Jews and their right to independence, in favor of the Arabs. Antisemitism always plays a significant role in European attitudes towards Israel as we see in the EU favoring of the Arabs and its endless criticism of Israel but not the PA which refuses to accept the Jewish right of independence and Jews' over 3000 year history in Israel.

Anonymous,
May 14, 2014 12:18 AM

British betrayal of its mandate trust is a fact

You make a very important point: that Britain, as mandatory, was obliged to facilitate "close settlement" of Jews in all of the territory west of the Jordan River. The Palestine Mandate was confirmed by UN Charter Article 80 so that it remains an obligation of all UN member states to facilitate settlement of Jews in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank. The settlements are lawful and UN condemnation of them is contravention of its trust obligations -- not that the rule of law means much to UN member states.

(3)
Anonymous,
May 12, 2014 10:45 AM

CCC: Why Complain & Criticize & Condemn?

In 2000 years of exile, no country matched Britain's gift to the Jews of the Balfour Declaration and San Remo Conference. Explicitly Pro-Semite Britains gave the Jews NINETEEN years to get out of Europe and build a majority in Israel before this White Paper. One of my ancestors came to Israel, largely thanks to the Balfour Declaration, and has over a hundred offspring today. His brother stayed in Europe and went up in ashes at Auschwitz.

Had we done more to help England's pro-Semites AND OURSELVES when WE were blessed with a 19-year-long fighting chance, we would not be wasting ink complaining about England’s anti-Semites. We would not be tempted to spend good energy condemning American Presidents who did, after all, help defeat the Nazis and give many readers of this publication a safe haven to live and flourish...

Why criticize, complain about and condemn others for not taking a moral stand? It’s just playing “victim”. We still do it today, with our newspapers and conversations and politics focused on wrong things others say about us and what others do wrong to us. We have so much to be proud of, so much to be grateful for, so much to fight for! These blessings are what we should be writing about and talking about, from our dinner tables to publications such as this one.

Let’s hold up our heads high. Let the past teach us where WE should have taken courageous moral stands for OURSELVES. If we listen to those lessons, we can make sure WE will do it right this time around. Let's spend our good energies standing tall for truth, with dignity, for ourselves, our people, our Israel, our living and true Torah - TODAY.

As Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"

StanleyT,
May 13, 2014 7:29 PM

The benefits of hindsight

It's so easy to look back and pat your ancestors on the back, but how many people would have believed you if in the 1920s, you told them that in 20 years time, Jews in Europe would be murdered en masse? They would have called you a crank. European Jews were enjoying an unprecedented era of freedom and prosperity and few of them were prepared to give it all up to go and drain swamps and irrigate deserts.In short, I think your entire post is extremely unfair and amounts to finding an excuse to let the British and the Americans off the hook for their contribution to the Holocaust. They could have saved millions, at a time when they DID know what was coming, and they should be held accountable.

Baruch,
May 14, 2014 8:22 AM

Be careful in judgement...

According to Stanley, we should not judge Jews who did not have the moral conviction to overcome the intimidating prospect of draining swamps and irrigating deserts in order to restore themselves to their own country. But Stanley feels we should judge Brits & Americans who did not have the moral conviction on the brink of a World War to overcome the intimidating prospect of infuriating the entire Middle East in order to save non-British/non-American people who missed the earlier open boat England provided to Israel.

Your honor, is that fair?

CONCLUSION: Our world will be a far better place if we spend more time draining swamps in the good times and less time kvetching about the weak non-saviors of the bad times.

Mark Meyerowitz,
May 13, 2014 7:46 PM

We can't simply forget history and "get over it."

Only by knowing history can you see the same situation developing again, and take steps to counter its re-occurrence. But leaders must be held to moral and legal standards. Otherwise why bother with Torah and laws at all?

Anonymous,
May 14, 2014 4:42 PM

Makes sense to me

is it kvetching, or, just observing/stating facts; If *all* we learn clearly from it is that we can't rely on states behaviors, that would seem to be a very valuable lesson.

Geoffrey Rogg,
May 14, 2014 3:36 AM

Totally agree.

Many thanks "anonymous" for saying exactly what I would have said. I am also fed up with the perpetual complaining from so many who do nothing else and are perpetual pessimists.

(2)
TMay,
May 12, 2014 9:23 AM

And yet

And yet the majority of American Jews vote Dem because of their loyalty to FDR.

Evelyn Dow,
May 14, 2014 12:37 AM

we aren't loyal to FDR- rather we can't stand the Republicans

Why would we be loyal to FDR? He had no love for us? no. I vote democratic because I don't see the value in the proposals of the republicans.

(1)
Abigail,
May 11, 2014 12:17 PM

Thank you for a good article, one that highlights the importance of upholding and defending the integrity of Holocaust history against the fallacies of historians who wish to whitewash the unpleasant truth.

Rosen's claim that "the Arab world would have revolted against the Allies and the Nazis would have captured the region and killed all the Jews living there" had not the White Paper not been in place flies in the face of historical fact. Suffice it to say the pledge of cooperation between Nazi Germany and Grand Mufti Al-Husseini (aka "Hitler's Mufti"), was intended among other things to provide the Nazis with strategic Arab support for effecting the slaughter of Jews living in Palestine and Arab lands. Below is a clause contained in a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation submitted by Al-Husseini to the Nazi government in the summer of 1940 and again in Feb 1941, after the imposition of the White Paper (from Wikipedia's article on Al-Husseini):

"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."

Since honey is produced by bees, and bees are not a kosher species, how can honey be kosher?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Talmud (Bechoros 7b) asks your very question! The Talmud bases this question on the principle that “whatever comes from a non-kosher species is non-kosher, and that which comes from something kosher is kosher.”

So why is bee-honey kosher? Because even though bees bring the nectar into their bodies, the resultant honey is not a 'product' of their bodies. It is stored and broken down in their bodies, but not produced there. (see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 81:8)

By the way, the Torah (in several places such as Exodus 13:5) praises the Land of Israel as "flowing with milk and honey." But it may surprise you to know that the honey mentioned in the verse is actually referring to date and fig honey (see Rashi there)!

In 1809, a group of 70 disciples of the great Lithuanian sage the Vilna Gaon, arrived in Israel, after traveling via Turkey by horse and wagon. The Vilna Gaon set out for the Holy Land in 1783, but for unknown reasons did not attain his goal. However he inspired his disciples to make the move, and they became pioneers of modern settlement in Israel. (A large contingent of chassidic Jews arrived in Tzfat around the same time.) The leader of the 1809 group, Rabbi Israel of Shklov, settled in Tzfat, and six years later moved to Jerusalem where he founded the modern Ashkenazic community. The early years were fraught with Arab attacks, earthquakes, and a cholera epidemic. Rabbi Israel authored, Pe'at Hashulchan, a digest of the Jewish agricultural laws relating to the Land of Israel. (He had to rewrite the book after the first manuscript was destroyed in a fire.) The location of his grave remained unknown until it was discovered in Tiberias, 125 years after his death. Today, the descendants of that original group are amongst the most prominent families in Jerusalem.

When you experience joy, you feel good because your magnificent brain produces hormones called endorphins. These self-produced chemicals give you happy and joyful feelings.

Research on these biochemicals has proven that the brain-produced hormones enter your blood stream even if you just act joyful, not only when you really are happy. Although the joyful experience is totally imaginary and you know that it didn’t actually happen, when you speak and act as if that imaginary experience did happen, you get a dose of endorphins.

These chemicals are naturally produced by your brain. They are totally free and entirely healthy.

Many people find that this knowledge inspires them to create more joyful moments. It’s not just an abstract idea, but a physical reality.

Occasionally, when I walk into an office, the receptionist greets me rudely. Granted, I came to see someone else, and a receptionist's disposition is immaterial to me. Yet, an unpleasant reception may cast a pall.

A smile costs nothing. Greeting someone with a smile even when one does not feel like smiling is not duplicity. It is simply providing a pleasant atmosphere, such as we might do with flowers or attractive pictures.

As a rule, "How are you?" is not a question to which we expect an answer. However, when someone with whom I have some kind of relationship poses this question, I may respond, "Not all that great. Would you like to listen?" We may then spend a few minutes, in which I unburden myself and invariably begin to feel better. This favor is usually reciprocated, and we are both thus beneficiaries of free psychotherapy.

This, too, complies with the Talmudic requirement to greet a person in a pleasant manner. An exchange of feelings that can alleviate someone's emotional stress is even more pleasant than an exchange of smiles.

It takes so little effort to be a real mentsch.

Today I shall...

try to greet everyone in a pleasant manner, and where appropriate offer a listening ear.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...